9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allocation of marks for viva voce examination. 2. Method of awarding marks in the interview test. Summary: Issue 1: Allocation of Marks for Viva Voce Examination The petitioner challenged the selection process for the Rajasthan Judicial Service, arguing that allocating 25% of the total marks to the viva voce examination introduced an element of arbitrariness, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court examined whether the weight given to the oral test was excessive and if it rendered the selection process arbitrary. The Court noted that the objective of any selection process for public service is to secure the best and most suitable candidates, avoiding patronage and favoritism. The Court emphasized that while written examinations assess a candidate's knowledge and intellectual ability, interview tests are valuable for assessing overall intellectual and personal qualities. The Court held that the allocation of 25% marks for the viva voce examination was not excessive, considering the candidates were not raw graduates but individuals with professional training. The selection process was conducted by a competent body, including a High Court Judge and members of the Public Service Commission, ensuring no arbitrariness. The Court concluded that the selection could not be struck down on the ground of excessive weightage given to the interview test. Issue 2: Method of Awarding Marks in the Interview Test The petitioner also contended that marks in the interview test were awarded in a single lot instead of being subdivided under various heads. The Court noted that the Rajasthan Judicial Service rules did not mandate the allocation of marks under different heads for the interview test. The criteria for the interview test were laid down by the rules, and it was for the interviewing body to decide whether to allocate marks under different heads or award them in a single lot. The Court observed that the totality of the impression created by the candidate might give a more accurate picture of the candidate's personality. The Court held that there was no illegality in awarding marks in a single lot, as the rules did not require subdivision of marks. The Court distinguished the present case from Periakaruppan's case, where the instructions to the Selection Committee mandated awarding marks under distinct tests. The Court concluded that the method of marking employed by the interviewing body was appropriate and not chosen with any oblique motive. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the selection process for the Rajasthan Judicial Service. The Court found no merit in the contentions that the allocation of 25% marks for the viva voce examination was excessive or that the method of awarding marks in a single lot was illegal. The Court emphasized that the selection process was conducted by competent and independent bodies, ensuring no arbitrariness or favoritism.
|
